Lateral Recovery LLC v. Preferred Capital LLC
- Rochon
- 1:22-cv-10447
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Lateral Recovery v. Benchmark Builders, Judge Rochon denied without prejudice Plaintiffs’ alternative-service request for Yisroel Weinstein but granted until July 28, 2023, to serve him.
Plaintiffs must serve Yisroel Weinstein under an authorized method by July 28, 2023, or renew their alternative-service request by that date.
What happened
In Lateral Recovery LLC, et al. v. Benchmark Builders, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs asked to serve Yisroel Weinstein by certified mail at addresses connected to other cases and through lawyers who had represented him in those matters. They also asked for more time to complete service.
The court found that Plaintiffs had not shown enough effort to locate Weinstein or proved that ordinary service methods were impracticable. It also found that the proposed addresses and lawyers were not sufficiently likely to notify Weinstein about this case.
Judge Jennifer L. Rochon denied without prejudice the request for alternative service, meaning Plaintiffs could renew it by July 28, 2023. The judge granted Plaintiffs an extension until that date to serve Weinstein under the federal rules.
The detailed version
- Lateral Recovery LLC v. Preferred Capital LLC · No. 1:22-cv-10447
- Rochon
- July 14, 2023
Background
Plaintiffs sued Defendants Preferred Capital LLC, Yisroel Weinstein, and John and Jane Doe Investors. Plaintiffs asked for permission to use alternative service methods for Weinstein under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1), and also requested more time to complete service. Their proposed methods were certified mail to addresses where Weinstein was purportedly served in other litigation and service through lawyers involved in those matters. No opposition was filed.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that Rule 4(e)(1) allows service on an individual by following the law of the state where the federal court is located or where service is made. Under New York law, a court may authorize another method when the usual methods are impracticable—that is, not reasonably workable under the circumstances. Plaintiffs also had to show that their proposed method was reasonably likely to notify Weinstein of the case and give him an opportunity to respond.
Plaintiffs described four unsuccessful service attempts at addresses in New York and New Jersey and said they had conducted searches using court databases, LexisNexis, and other search engines. The court found that Plaintiffs had not provided enough evidence about those efforts, such as a declaration from counsel, to show that ordinary service was impracticable or that they had sufficiently investigated Weinstein’s current location.
The court also rejected the proposed alternative methods. In one earlier state-court matter, the person was identified as “Meir Weinstein,” not “Yisroel Weinstein,” and the proposed address belonged to another person identified as “John Weinstein.” Plaintiffs did not explain the basis for believing these people were the same individual. In another state-court matter, the record did not show that the case was ongoing or that the lawyer involved still represented Weinstein. The court therefore found that the proposed methods were not reasonably likely to notify Yisroel Weinstein.
Ruling
The court denied Plaintiffs’ request for alternative service without prejudice to renewal no later than July 28, 2023. It granted Plaintiffs’ request for an extension of time and allowed service on Weinstein under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by July 28, 2023. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion docket entry.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.